No, it didn't go higher than the sticks. The video is inconclusive though as it was filmed from the North Stand, the only views that will provide proof are from the South and West.

TJs are the sole decision makers with regards to in-touch and awarding goals if officially appointed.

It's possible that at an amateur game they were volunteer TJs in which case the referee's decision is final.

He was wrong thenIf there is no disagreement between the Touch Judges their decision shall be accepted.[/i

Must say ur talking out of ur a**e . The ref awards the goal not the tjs weather they stick u their flags or not

Look at the post immediately above yours, those are the exact words from The Laws of the Game. Do you contend that whoever wrote them is also talking out of his ar[is[/ie?

Fair enough, I think they were volunteers (1 from each team) though like the post from tim2 said, so I'm guessing it was his choice for each goal.

The ref has the final decision end off.

The touch judges decide on the goal! If they disagree, the ref is supposed to go with the one nearest to the upright which the ball passes closest by, as it is deemed that they would have the best view!the ref runs the game, but the act of kicking a goal and the touch in goal area is pretty much the touch judges domain

Good to see you know better than the RFL. Can you also tell us how Warrington remain under the cap, which RFL board member Gary Hetherington has dirt on, what Eamonn McManus eats for breakfast and what Ian Leneghan's ideal tuesday would be?

Whatever the laws say, I've often seen the ref overrule the TJs at amateur level even when both are in agreement.

But then some of the decisions are amateur level are mind-boggling.

Not that I'm dissing refs, mind, they're brave buggers.

No, you ignorant c?nt, you do NOt have to say "ur talking out of ur a**e". I answered someone's question and we were having a polite conversation. If I was not right, then you could say so without coming out with an opening remark that would get you separated from your teeth in many pubs.

Anyway, I won't respond in kind, but according the laws of the game, what I said is correct. And, we go on what the laws of the game say, not whatever comes into your puerile head.

Now run along.

Obviously I am commenting on that video, and yes the ball did (from that perspective) clear the posts. Which is the reason it is inconclusive.

However I think you're wrong since I reckon that if the ball did not go higher than the posts, then there is no possible camera angle from the sidelines, ie whether from below the top of the posts, above them, or level with them, in which you wouldn't see the ball pass in front of or behind a post.

"I believe it did go over," Vikings coach Betts told BBC Radio Merseyside.

"The referee might quote differently, but Rhys said he (Hicks) thought it went over. The linesmen put their flags down so he couldn't overrule them."

Odd, that.

As someone who knew Mr hicks as he was starting in the ref game, i will not comment on him as whatever I say will be biased.
However FA is correct: when I took the ref exams in Oldham (same as Mr Hicks but a year or so before), I was told that to over-rule the touch judges was sufficient to be asked to step down as a ref: you did not over-rule them.The rules state the same.
However, in the amateur game (and mine were mostly youths) the bias of some volunteer TJs was so obvious that I sometimes had to suggest they watched the game and I would ignore them.

Refs: once they make a decision, that decision stands unless another official can advise the ref. So a ref can realise it's cocked it up but the decision stands. No comment on cetain Leeds players.

Comedy. You'll be missed